Ex Parte Ashikhmin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2016

12915743 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/915,743 10/29/2010 Alexei E. Ashikhmin
46304 7590 06/09/2016
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
48 South Service Road
Suite 100
Melville, NY 11747
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
807216-US-NP 8234
EXAMINER
CADEAU, WEDNEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/09/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
nyoffice@rml-law.com
jbr@rml-law.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXEI E. ASHIKHMIN
and PHILIP ALFRED WHITING
Appeal2014-007150
Application 12/915,743
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1--4 and 15-21. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 7-13 are objected to, but otherwise are found to contain allowable
subject matter. See Final Action 14. The rejections of claims 5, 6, and 14
have been withdrawn. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
Appeal2014-007150
Application 12/915,743
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "techniques for mitigating,
suppressing or otherwise controlling interference between communication
channels in [communication] systems." Spec. 1:7-8. Claim 1 is reproduced
below for reference (with emphasis added):
1. A method of controlling crosstalk between channels of a
communication system, comprising:
generating a set of L distinct and linearly independent
pilot signals, each having length n, where n > L such that n-L
linearly independent n-tuples are available for use in detection
and correction of impulse noise;
transmitting the L pilot signals over respective ones of
the channels;
processing one or more of the pilot signals as received
over their respective channels to detect the presence of impulse
n01se;
generating a crosstalk estimate corrected for the detected
impulse noise; and
utilizing the corrected crosstalk estimate to control
crosstalk between two or more of the channels.
References and Rejections2
Claims 1--4 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kramer (US 2010/0202554 Al; Aug. 12, 2010) and Cioffi
(US 2005/0152385 Al; July 14, 2005). Final Act. 5; Ans. 2.
Claims 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kramer, Cioffi, and Peeters (US 2009/0092036 Al; Apr.
9, 2009). Final Act. 9; Ans. 2.
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claim 15. See Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2014-007150
Application 12/915,743
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own,
except as to any findings that we expressly overturn or set aside in the
analysis as follows.
A. Independent Claim 1
Appellants argue "Kramer teaches directly away from having pilot
signals whose respective lengths n are greater than the number L of pilot
signals" as required by claim 1, because "Kramer describes having a length
of respective pilot sequences at least as large as the number of channels is a
significant drawback which causes problems." App. Br. 7-8 (emphasis
omitted); see also Reply Br. 2-3; Kramer i-f 52.
Appellants' argument refers to Kramer's teaching that the limitation
of claim 1 (requiring the length of the pilot signals to be greater than the
number of pilot signals) is used in the "typical conventional approach."
Kramer i-f 50. Kramer teaches that the conventional approach has "problems
such as requiring an excessive amount of time to join a new line to a group
of active lines, or requiring an excessive amount of time to achieve optimum
performance on a new line that has recently joined a group of active lines."
Kramer i-f 52. Kramer, therefore, discloses other embodiments that use
reduced numbers and lengths of probing sequences. See Kramer i-f 53.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. "[T]he prior art's mere
disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away
from any of these alternative because such disclosure does not criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed." In re Fulton, 391
3
Appeal2014-007150
Application 12/915,743
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Kramer discloses multiple
embodiments, including the claimed approach which Kramer teaches is well
known in the art. See Final Act. 6 (citing Kramer i-fi-149-52). Accordingly,
we agree with the Examiner that the disclosure of Kramer is not a "teaching
away since Kramer discloses something that is being done and proven to be
working."3 Ans. 3.
As we do not find Kramer teaches away from the Examiner's
combination with Cioffi, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
claim 1 obvious in view of Kramer and Cioffi. 4
B. Dependent Claim 4
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 4,
because Kramer fails to disclose "impulse noise" as recited by the claim, and
"Cioffi, however, is devoid of any reference to a pilot signal, and thus
cannot be said to remedy the deficiencies of Kramer with respect to a
received pilot signal x1 including a vectors of impulse noise as recited in
claim 4." App. Br. 10.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of error because they attack
the references individually, and thus fail to address the Examiner's findings.
3 Separately, we note that-rather than teach away from the claimed ratio of
pilot length to number of pilot signals-Kramer teaches improvements upon
the conventional approach with various ratios. See, e.g., Kramer i-fi-199, 116
("[E]mbodiments of the invention may be configured to utilize pilot
sequences of length L where L is greater than or equal to the number N of
transmitters. Thus, each of the transmitters in such an embodiment may have
a different pilot signal.").
4 Further, we note claim 1 is open-ended and does not recite a minimum
number of pilot signals; therefore the recited "set of L ... pilot signals" may
encompass a sub-set of a larger number of pilot signals used in a system.
4
Appeal2014-007150
Application 12/915,743
See Jn re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references."). Here, the Examiner
correctly finds "[t ]he system of Kramer is directed to eliminating or
alleviating crosstalk in DSL system[ s]" using pilot sequences as claimed,
and an artisan of ordinary skill would combine Kramer with "Cioffi[, which]
teaches using vectoring to calculate and mitigate impulse noise." Final Act.
3--4; see also Kramer i-fi-16-7 and 38-39; Cioffi i-fi-18 and 55. We are unable
to find in the record before us any evidence that such a combination was
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, Appellants
do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Kramer
and Cioffi teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 4. See Final Act. 7-8;
Ans. 4--5.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and
dependent claim 4. Appellants argue independent claims 16 and 21 are
allowable for the same reasons provided for claim 1, and also because the
additionally cited "Peeters fails to remedy the above-noted deficiencies of
the combination of Kramer and Cioffi." App. Br. 13. As we are not
persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's findings with respect to
Kramer and Cioffi, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
claims 16 and 21 obvious for the same reasons discussed above with respect
to independent claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-007150
Application 12/915,743
Appellants advance no further argument on dependent claims 2, 3, 15,
and 17-20. See App. Br. 9, 13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejections of these claims for the same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 15-21 is affirmed
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6